He gets the benefit of four and a half years of accumulated bookmarks and all the points racked up in the Google algorithm and you are "confused?
You are also disingenuous.
I am immensely pleased he is working on this and think it is a fine thing for him to spend his time and attention on.
Sounds like moving the goalposts to me. A very tiny goalposts at that.
However, if you can cite a well-known person who had a complaint about the domain name and paid for that I’ll admit I am indeed disingenuous.
I responded only to the post I quoted. That was disingenuous claiming that the current owners had none nothing that could be construed as “work” to which they should claim compensation.
The value is certainly up for discussion–I have made no claim that they are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars–but your claim was wrong.
As to whether you are willing to admit it? Not my problem.
You mean like having this:
as one of the only bits of content on their homepage?
I’m sorry to see him take this course.
Okay. I stand corrected.
U.S. law in general permits agreements for private arbitration. But it’s not specifically part of the anti-cybersquatting statute.
Haw haw! Instead of looking for the free market resolution, he appeals to government remedies. Government sucks, unless I want it for something. True fucking libertarian to the core.
He wants to sell t-shirts & coffee mugs <SNERK>
Golly! One might think someone arguing a position such as yours would at least give the website in question a cursory glance before commencing with the digging-in of heels.
Also: what would your position be if ronpaul.com was owned and used by some actuary in Dubuque who also has the name of Ron Paul? Would it change? Would there be a difference if Dubuque RP used the site as, say, a homepage to post family photos and cute stories versus if he was rabidly anti-Libertarian and ranted about how it and Politician RP sucks (while making it expressly clear that he/the site has no affiliation or connection to Political RP and that he is a real person who is also named Ron Paul)?
newc’s a Libertarian. He’s not interested in facts.
I always felt in my gut that Ron Paul was a phony and a hypocrite. I’m glad I was right.
No personal insults in this forum, thank you.
I was corrected on my suggestion that many people flocked to the site because they thought it was in control of Ron Paul. That fact still has no bearing on his right to ask for domain name to be handed over. I wish the disclosure was more prominent but it is what it is.
That would be up to a panel to resolve but I think that other person with the same name would be able to keep it if there was no reference to the other one. Actually, if you analyze that domain name history prior to 2008 it was owned by a guy with the same name but he was in a different business and there was no picture of the Ron Paul that we discuss here so there was no way that anyone would be confused. Then someone bought it from him, filled-it up with Ron Paul stuff (quotes, speeches, blog, pictures) to make a buck off his image.
Are you really that bent on outrage that you will deny someone preventing people from using his likeness to sell t-shirts?
If you want to call it a personal insult, I’ll defer, but that wasn’t the intent. I’ll maintain that he’s established a solid basis for both statements. He’s arguing his opinions and brushing aside facts to support a straight Libertarian position.
I still think that you are embedding personal feeling about the man based on his media created distorted image and you are just venting on someone you feel you actually can with no consequences.
On top of that, you still haven’t demonstrated the grasp of the issue so your silly little quips are just lame.
What the heck are you blabbering about?
It’s simple so please focus on the question- does Ron Paul have a right to be handed over ownership of the domain www.ronpaul.com as many other celebrities and/or politicos do in case when someone else is using well-known person likeness for personal gain?
Everything else, including Google algorithm ranking BS because it was built on his image for someone else, is secondary.
Simple yes or no will suffice.
I have spent some thirty years in a field overrun by Libertarian thinking of every level, and I have learned to despise it pointillist fashion - dot by dot. Paul brought nothing new to the game except a certain notoriety, and I have yet to engage a supporter who can do anything but parrot canned phrases and exhibit the deepest possible misunderstanding of how the sociopolitical world works.
I am the one person who has stepped into this thread with inside and hands-on knowledge of holding a big-name domain name and engaging the presumptive “owners” regarding it.
You, on the other hand, appear to have pulled every post from a dark void and haven’t had a clue about the nature of the parties involved, the site itself, or even your own examples.
No, it won’t.
- Was it clear on their website that it wasn’t his personal website?
- Can it be shown that they profitted to his detriment?
- Can it be shown that they made any profit at all?